W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Proposed resolution for bug 21001

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:01:17 -0500
Message-Id: <55CE1452-5393-4F5B-ABBD-5140DF5AA32D@muzmo.com>
Cc: "public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
May I suggest that the phrase "required option" is a bit confusing, even oxymoronic. (Hey, who are you calling an oxy-moron?)

I don't have an alternative at hand, but... Just sayin'

Murray

> On Jan 7, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> 
> Bug 21001 observes that it is not always possible to detect statically
> that a required option is missing:
> 
>  https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21002
> 
> I propose the following resolution:
> 
> In 5.7.2 p:option, replace the first paragraph after the first
> p:option syntax diagram with:
> 
> 
>  An option may be declared as required. If an option is required, it
>  is an error to invoke that step without specifying a value for that
>  option. For steps invoked within a pipeline, it is a static error
>  (err:XS0018) to specify an invocation without specifying a value for
>  a requried option. For pipelines invoked directly by an external
>  environment (informally, top-level pipelines), this error cannot be
>  detected statically. It is a dymamic error (err:XD????) to invoke
>  a pipeline without specifying a value for a required option.
> 
> Comments?
> 
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
> 
> -- 
> Norman Walsh
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> Phone: +1 512 761 6676
> www.marklogic.com
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 16:01:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:52 UTC